I don't see why it matters that someone get it hours before if some already got it 2 weeks in advance by paying it. Weird logic for me ! If they pretend that the market is efficient then the guys that had it two weeks in advance have already anticipated and then who came after are just fucked. So all this noise for what ? If it is for justice then the datas should be available to everybody for a raisonnable fee. 30K/month is not reasonable indeed. In fact every data that involve public policy should be free: people pay enough taxes for that haha !
Harrytrader, You missed my pointâ¦it is not 2 weeks, all subscribersâmy firm, Bloomberg, etc.-- all get the number at the same time via a conference call and then it is released on the news wires a fraction of a second later. There is not a two week delay!
"30K/month is not reasonable indeed. " CNBC said that they have 150 paying customers that pay $750,000 total on an annual basis. $750,000/ 150 customers/ 12 months = approx. $416.7 per month per customer , which is not much at all!
Let's even suppose that it is only 416$, first why do they play the comedy of "surprise" each time the index is given to the public then ? Second it is normally an OBLIGATION for market's efficiency that all operators get the same PUBLIC information at the same time. This information is used in government datas. That they have decided to privatise it doesn't change its nature. So if the enquiry is about a guy that get the information a few hours before it is like they want to put some screen smoke once again since the core problem is not really there !
The article is wrong; plain and simple! Think about it...some of the subscribers are the news wire services; why would they keep the info to themselves for longer than it takes them to type it and send it out to their subscribers. I listen to the conference call (as a subscriber to the Michigan consumer number) and then it comes out on Bloomberg a fraction of a second later. It's not much time, but it's enough to get off a market order before it hits the wire services and the TV. The best opportunity was a couple of months ago when the expected number was in the low 90s and the number came out at 103 and change. Most everyone in my office got of their order when the woman on the conference call said the word "one." There is a preliminary monthly number and then a final revision 2 weeks later....perhaps this had something to do with the confusion of the author of the article.
I, for one, am happy to live in a country that allows private enterprise and a free market. If an organization wants to conduct a survey and sell the results, there is nothing wrong with that. You are free to conduct a survey and sell the results....perhaps you could call it "The Harrytrader Survey."
TRADERguy, I agree. http://www.earningsbase.com/research/wake_up2_UofM.jsp This article may be misleading and false! Univ. of Mich. releases a Mid Month and Final reading for Consumer Sentiment. There is no way that paid subscribers get the number 2 weeks prior to release! That doesn't make sense! As a few people on this thread have said, there is a conference call and then the number is released to the wire orgs. Maybe someone has a 30 or 40 second advantage to get a trade off. This last FOMC meeting release, did anyone notice the rally in Bonds about 30-40 seconds before the actual release? It happened during the last few Payroll numbers too! Hmmm, It makes you wonder if its Stevie C, Goldman, Lehman and or Morgan getting that early info.?
Leaks happen all the time but I don't think that you can attribute the price action just prior to the last FOMC release to a leak. I was watching the depth of market for the 10 yr (zn) and so many participants pulled their bids and offers that a spread of about 14 half tics formed and this set off stops in both directions: first up and then back down.